1. The backstop is a part of the divorce deal. Since UK is heading straight into a no-deal Brexit, this part also falls through. In other words, with a No-Deal Brexit, the Backstop also automatically drops off the table and thus the UK is not part of the Customs Union anymore then in any way, and will have to pay import taxes if they want to export to the EU.

2. They have no say, but it's the NI Secretary of State's duty to perform such polls. Also, it's her duty to reflect on people's interests

4. No need for such security. Besides, if the Troubles come back, they happen in Northern Ireland, so it would rather be in UK's interest to raise the wall sky-high instead of Irelands to keep the Nationals from supplying themselves with everything they need. For the rest, look at point number 1

5. Leo is right in a way, as it would keep the spirit of the GFA, but not the letter, which doesn't say anything at all about or against border controls, So these can be put in action without breaking the agreement.

LurkerJ already posted the collateral, with some jobs being lost on the continent as there will be slowing trade with the UK for a while at least. The economy of the EU will get a small hit, but nothing near the hit it will be for the UK.

@Bold Can just use article 21 in that case to apply for an exemption ... 

As far as 'destroying' an industry is concerned, Britain stands to make FAR MORE money by undercutting European producers through a backdoor than to keep subsidizing ANY sort of agriculture because France, Germany, and Spain takes most of the CAP funding ... (with no deal the British should come to Ireland with these cheap imported goods and look at all the profit they'll rake in by selling contraband to a very big market) 

As far as free trade 'deals' are concerned, the backdoor would only be available to the UK because of WTO article 21. The UK should use this advantage to gain the best trade deals among the most desperate bidders (poor countries) ... 

Even with the shortest shipping routes, food is still more expensive because the EU employs less productive methods of agriculture. It's stupid to be fear mongering about hormone treated beef, chlorinated chicken or GMOs when the likes of Canada has genetically modified fish for sale such as the AquAdvantage salmon from AquaBounty Technologies. Transport costs won't matter much when your food takes 2-3x longer to grow or if the labour costs outweigh productivity. If the EU is going to be a protectionist market then it should strive to grow to be globally competitive but now that we're on the cusp of a "big data/machine learning revolution" when they go backwards by implementing data protection laws which is a shame because they'll be missing out on the potential of a growing sector for years ... 

Yes the UK has been a part of EU development but it's been one mistakes after another either from the UK's own politicians (Blair goofed up when he imposed no freedom of movement controls) or from EU politicians (letting Greece enter the eurozone, migrant crisis, etc) until that faithful day where David Cameron showed light (Referendum) at the end of the tunnel (Brexit) so now Britain can finally right the many wrongs the EU has caused by punishing the rotten project that's at the brink anyway ... (Ireland will soon be forced to choose either in the name of 'solidarity' or 'reunification') 

The EU had 43 years to prove to itself that it can show the goods but enough is enough ... 

1. Is being a part of an indefinite customs union a part of that deal as well ? If it is then the ERG are right in that the EU can go kiss their own asses ... 

2. It's also the duty of NI Secretary of State to determine the requirements for the polls and she isn't to be held accountable by the people but the prime minister itself ... (just by the virtue that it is the unionists alone who have a decisive advantage in both votes and representation of NI constituencies means that there's no clear majority to hold a border poll)  

4. Pretty sure there would need to be security because the extreme Irish nationalists wouldn't be attacking British border patrol officers (UK probably won't send any before Ireland does) but they'd be attacking Irish border patrol officers! Then there's also the issue of there being over hundreds of crossing points and Ireland was FORCED TO BLOCK the vast majority of the crossing points because they've suffered many more breaches on their side so if Ireland is to so much as to block even just a SINGLE crossing point they'd automatically void the GFA. During the Troubles only 20 crossings were open while today there are as many as 275 crossings so I doubt that Ireland will be able to effectively police all of them ... 

5. Again Ireland CAN'T BE BLOCKING the crossing points since it would be in absolute breach of the agreement ... (they need a hard border or they get kicked out of the customs union)

The UK will be taking more than just some jobs on the continent. It will also either enable smuggling or result in Ireland getting kicked out of the EU customs union. How is one supposed to deal with the nationalists feeling betrayed in the process and the numerous crossing points ... (for Ireland it's either all or nothing regarding a border so they can't just have a 'soft' border like only a customs check as it would still open the possibility of smuggling)

" (most because the immigration crisis hit all of Europe and got resolved pretty quickly,"

It's still very much still going on, which is why we have the situation in Poland and Austria.

"The Yellow vests protested against rising cost of living in France due to a planned rise of the fuel tax and nothing else, thus having nothing to do with the EU"

Sorry, no.  The yellow vests started with fuel but evolved into a far larger movement. - https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/a3op4n/the_peoples_directives_demands_made_by_the_yellow/ /  https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2018/11/29/les-gilets-jaunes-publient-une-nouvelle-flopee-de-revendications_a_23604413/

Theres barely a month left now.....

I suspect the UK is just going to hard crash out of the EU.
A boarder wall will be built in Ireland, and scotland seeks independence.

If I was a UK citizen I wouldnt have any confidence in my PM anymore, magically solveing the issues when she just wasted 2,5years.

Can you point to the exact part of article 21 that you're referring to?

The way I see it, the UK can apply but there is no guarantee the WTO will accept.

Also, the contraband idea is ridiculous. In the no deal situation it is in both the EU and Ireland's interests to apply customs checks to protect local industries and the integrity of the single market. Who do you think would be willing to risk trying smuggling goods into Ireland in that situation? The few economists that support the idea of going tariff-free after brexit have all said it would destroy the UK agricultural and manufacturing sectors and that they support the economic "re-calibration".

@bolded1

You realise we already import tariff-free with the world's poorest countries via the EU under the 'Everything but Arms' initiative? Striking trade deals with these countries would only bring us back to the current status-quo.

@bolded2

Do you have anything to support the claim that these costs will be higher then the cost of transport. Also, how exactly do you expect us to get cheap, fresh and perishable produce from outside the EU?

@bolded3

UK have had ample opportunities to apply immigration restrictions from the EU after Blair. No government has bothered as it brings in a over 10-fold more tax revenue than it costs.

You also realise we've barely scratched the surface of the 759 international treaties we get via the EU and would lose and have to re-negotiate in the event of no deal. These cover a lot more than just trade.

https://www.ft.com/content/f1435a8e-372b-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e

There is literally no political leadership in the UK anymore.Both government and opposition have been pathetic.

It'll be a disaster and they'll try and palm it off on the EU as they always do.

1. The backstop was planned for a period of 21 months, until end of 2020 (that's the one in the deal, set up until a definitive solution could be found), not indefinitely. The indefinite one, where the UK parliament would have had the last say on any agreement, got shot down by the EU.

4. Why would they attack Irish customs officers (because that's all that's gonna be needed on the border, no military officers) but not British ones? That makes no sense at all, especially since the Brits leaving the EU is the cause for this mess in the first place. I agree on the streets that got reopened after 1993, they probably will need to be blocked again. But again, making a road impassable doesn't mean militarizing a border. And again, that doesn't void the letter of the GFA.

While we're at it, Ireland leaving the EU wouldn't solve any of these problems, the only thing that does is Northern Ireland becoming part of Ireland again

5. Again, Ireland has every right to do so as long the border doesn't get militarized, Besides, custom checks on both sides are gonna be mandatory after a no-deal Brexit. Or let me quote from another source: " in a no-deal Brexit scenario, the EU and the UK must trade with each other in line with the MFN obligation. The EU would have to treat goods coming from the UK in the same way as any other third-country goods. Likewise, the UK, following a re-negotiation of its Schedules of Concessions and Commitments on goods and a settlement of its regulatory environment with the EU and all other WTO members, would be required to raise duties and conduct border requirements without distinguishing between products originating in the EU or any other nation. Unless and until the UK negotiates new preferential trade agreements with other countries – including the EU – the country will have to trade goods on a MFN basis. As a result, at the land borders with the UK, as well as at EU ports and airports, the EU will apply the same border checks for goods originating in the UK as it does for goods coming from any other non-preferential trade partner. Absent an agreement between the two blocs, goods crossing the North/South Irish border or arriving by sea or air will be subject to EU customs duties, VAT and excise duties, as well as EU rules of origin, EU product safety and quality standards, EU sanitary requirements for live animals and products of animal origin and EU environmental protection and animal welfare rules. By the same token, the UK will have to apply its MFN duties and border controls on goods coming from the EU."

In other words, both the EU and the UK will have to impose and enforce border checks. I already explained that those don't break the GFA several times. And, as you can see, since the UK is also forcing themselves to border checks if they go No-Deal, even if border checks would break the GFA (which, again, it doesn't!), then both would have to break it, not just Ireland. In fact, the UK are already preparing themselves to create a hard border with Ireland. No exception from Articles 21 and 24 either, by the way: "The pivotal non-discrimination obligation enshrined in Article I GATT 1994 therefore casts doubt upon the position of the UK Government and the arguments of some Brexiteers mentioned above. In the event of a hard Brexit, the WTO MFN principle will entail a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Exceptions such as the national security exception under Article XXI or the frontier tariff exception under Article XXIV:3 GATT 1994 will not apply. Unless and until the UK and the EU conclude a preferential trade agreement such as a free trade agreement or a customs union as authorised by Article XXIV, a hard South/North Irish border will remain."

Also, if you're so concerned about smuggling into the EU, how about smuggling into the UK instead? The EU has much more and cheaper goods to send into the UK than what the UK has to offer. In other words, the UK will need to install border checks, too. For instance, smugglers are getting ready to smuggle cigarettes en masse into the UK

I pray England gets a second Ref...there was a lot of lying and underhanded tactics used to propagate the Leave campaign...its especially fishy since all the people who pushed for Brexit have now all disappeared or resigned.

With Article 21, section (b) it states that "Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent any contracting party from taking any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests." so this means that the UK and Ireland can make an exception with their border based on security interests to prevent a series of incidents from ever happening again like "The Troubles". They'd be able to present a very strong case for the WTO to continue to uphold the Good Friday Agreement ... 

As for 'accepting', that's the WTO's problem to raise a dispute with the proposed case but since it takes a long time to settle a dispute and that there is no true international governing body so I'd say it's a relatively toothless organization ... 

Of course it's in the EU's interest to protect their "single market" but one of their member has an issue with it which is diametrically opposed to their own interests in upholding the Good Friday Agreement so that's why there's a conundrum between the backstop and the Irish border. The UK would be very interested in trying to smuggle if Ireland decided to not put up a hard border and the EU just somehow tolerated it but that's not going to happen so you know where this is going ...  

Ireland is either going to have to choose between 'solidarity' (EU customs/single market) or 'reunification' (breaking GFA in the process thus giving up all claims to NI) in a no deal scenario ...  

1. "Tariff-free imports with the world's poorest countries" is lame for the most part since a much of these countries are in a conflict so it's no wonder why EU is only willing to pick the lowest hanging fruits. We need more of the "tariff free imports from the more productive countries for their value" instead cause the EU's dictated monopolies in the single market just offer bad value since there's not much demand to buy Greek, Spanish or Italian goods/services in the global market. If I'm being frank quite a few European members have over inflated economies because of the EU's protectionist policies and they'd have their incomes 'normalized' a lot quicker with less developed countries like Brazil or China without those policies in place. It's kinda sad how the EU has left the project with quite a bit of near junk level bonds from some of it's members ... (if the EU is to survive then it needs to have a competitive advantage for the global markets like a cheap oil/natural gas well or leadership in technology because a big market is absolutely not a strategic advantage when we take a look at many smaller entities like South Korea, Japan or Saudi Arabia which are able to thrive perfectly in global markets so you and everyone else need to realize that trading is a two way relationship thus political unions can't serve as an effective bullying tactic when smaller sellers have genuine monopolies) 

2. Well for starters a kilogram of beef costs 22 quids on average in the UK while it costs around 12 quids on average in the US and shipping a 40 ft container from New York to London costs only about 4x as much as it does from Dublin to London so even shipping livestock to be then slaughtered would mean European cattle producers would be out of a job immediately when overhead like shipping (less than $2000) pales in comparison to the potential savings itself. European meat producers would very quickly find themselves uncompetitive in general compared to the global market so they need these non-tariff barriers to protect their their businesses and similarly other high value produce. We'll be able to import the vast majority of the essentials from either China or North/South America at cheap rates but if you want to cherry pick then yeah fresh and perishable produce like berries can't be easily had then ... (doing tariff free produce imports with everyone else seems to make more sense than tariff free produce with Europe but if you're that concerned about domestic production then you should lobby to align in policy with Americans rather than Europeans) 

3. Except they really didn't when Blair resigned in favour of Gordon Brown so there was no backlash to be faced yet from party policy and then David Cameron was in a coalition with the Lib Dems for the next term. It wasn't until the next election after that where Cameron won a clear majority by promising to hold a referendum so that concerns could be truly measured but little did he knew that the electorate wasn't going to let him slimeball his way out of a promise with a coalition being his excuse. Had Blair not goofed up and other issues didn't crop up with the EU, the UK would probably be still be inside the EU but if a referendum is the only way they'd be able to reflect on the mistakes they've made for the past few years then so be it. The "10-fold more tax revenue" is nothing more than a hyperbole since just about any studies will make some certain assumptions in their models so we can't be sure of the figures either way ...